[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Ltru] Re: Note to RFC editor in initial registry



Me too.

Addison Phillips wrote:
Sounds fine to me.
Addison

Addison P. Phillips
Globalization Architect, Quest Software
Chair, W3C Internationalization Core Working Group

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.

-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Ewell [mailto:dewell at adelphia.net]
Sent: samedi 24 septembre 2005 18:44
To: LTRU Working Group
Cc: Addison Phillips; John C Klensin
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: Note to RFC editor in initial registry

Addison Phillips <addison dot phillips at quest dot com> wrote:


In any case, you don't need to adopt John Klensin's exact words. It
seems to me that he was unaware of some of the details of registration
and proposed text that seemed fitting. I would suggest that you just
modify the proposed wording and we move along. How about:

--
3.  The initial set of subtags in the registry, which were specified
by this document, are those records in the IANA registry [IANA-
registry] with "Added" field-values before 2005-07-11.  Note that
[ltru-registry, Section 3.1] requires that an "Added" field appear in
each registration record and that Section 3.3(1) specifies that field
must not be changed after registration. (Other fields in these records
may have been modified at a later date, subject to the restrictions in
Section 3.4 of [ltru-registry].)
--

NB> the date 2005-07-11 is "Date B + 1"

That's OK with me, except I'm still worried about explicitly specifying
the date.  That gives us (or the RFC Editor) one more opportunity to
forget to update "all" the dates.  How about:

   ... with "Added" field values no later than the date of publication
   of this document.

This assumes that the File-Date and Added dates for subtags (not
grandfathered or redundant tags) in the initial registry, the date of
publication of draft-initial, and the date of publication of
draft-registry are all the same.  I think we have been making that
assumption all along, and need to be able to rely on it.

I would also remove the parentheses from the last sentence, to avoid
de-emphasizing it -- because I think it is important -- and append
something like:

   Because of this, it may not be possible to use a future version of
   the Language Subtag Registry to reconstruct an exact copy of the
   initial registry contents.

Comments?

--
Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/




------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru




Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.